



.0 ^ 



V-^-i 



39th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. f Report 

2d Session. ) i aTq qq 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 



.March 2, 1867.— Laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 



Mr. WooDBRiDGE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the followine . 

EEPOET. Cl. 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the message of the 
President of the United States, communicating a report of the Secretary of 
State relating to the discovery and arrest of John H. Surratt, respectfully 
report : 

That John H. Surratt ^aiU'd from Canada for Liv^erpool, about the middle of 
of September, A. D. 1865 ; that information was received by Mr. Seward, Secretary 
of State, from Mr. Wilding, then vice-consul at Liverpool, by commuuicatiou 
dated September 21, 1865, that Surratt was at that time in Liverpool, or ex- 
pected there in a day or two. 

By a despatch from Mr. Wilding to Mr. Seward, dated September 30, 1865, 
it appears that the supposed Surratt had arrived at Liverpool, and was staying 
at the Oratory of the Roman Catholic church of the Holy Cross, and that he, 
Wilding, could do nothing in the matter, without instructions from Mr. Adams, 
our minister to England, and a warrant. 

By a despatch from the State Department, under date of October 13, 1865, 
Mr. Wilding was informed that it was deemed advisable that no action should 
be taken in regard to the arrest of the supposed Surratt at that time, and from 
the testimony it would seem that action was delayed upon the ground, princi- 
pally, that the English government would not give him up. 

The Secretary of State received a despatch from Mr. Potter, then consul 
general at Montreal, under date of October 25, 1865, informing him that 
Surratt left Canada for Liverpool some time in September previous, and was, 
then in Liverpool awaiting the arrival of a steamer, which had not then sailed 
from Canada, by which he was expecting to receive money, and that he was 
intending to go to Rome. In a further despatch from Mr. Potter to the Secre- 
tary of State, dated October 27, 1865, information was given that Surratt was 
then in Liverpool, and had told the person who imparted the information to Mr. 
Potter that he would be obliged to remain there until he could receive money 
from Montreal. 

Upon November 11, 1865, Mr. Potter was informed by a despatch from the 
State Department that the information communicated in his despatch had been 
properly availed of, and upon the 13th of November the Secretary of State re- 
quested the Attorney General of the United States to procure an indictment 
against Surratt as soon as convenient, with the view to demand his surrender. 

Whether an indictment was procured does not appear from the testimony, 
but it does appear that no demand for the surrender of Surratt was ever made 
upon the English government. 

Without referring particularly to the various communications to the State 
Department from Mr. King, our minister at Rome, commencing as early as April 
23, 1866, stating in the despatch of that date that he had received information 



2 JOHN H. SURRATT. 

that Surratt, under name of Watson, had enlisted in the Papal zouaves and was 
then stationed at Lezze, and the various replies thereto, your committee would 
refer to the despatch of Mr. King under date of August 8, 1866, in which he 
says that he had repeated to Cardinal Antonelli the information communicated 
to him in regard to Surratt ; that " his eminence was greatly interested by it and 
intimated that if the American government desired the surrender of the criminal 
there would probably be no difficulty in the way." 

It appears that no notice was taken of this communication until October 16, 
1866, when the Secretary of State desires Mr. King to ask the cardinal whether 
his Holiness would now be willing, in the absence of an extradition treaty, to 
deliver John H. Surratt upon an authentic indictment, and at the request of the 
department, for complicity in the assassination of the late President Lincoln, or 
whether, in the event of this request being declined, his Holiness would enter 
into an extradition treaty with us which would enable us to reach the sun-ender 
of Surratt. It appears, however, from the testimony of the Secretaiy of State, 
that from about the time the communication from Mr. King, of August 8, was 
received, up to about the time of the communication to Mr. King from the State 
Department, of October 16, 1866, the Secretary was absent from Washington, 
and upon his return confined to his house by illness. 

From a communication from Mr. King to the Secretary of State of November 
3, 1866, it appears that Cardinal Antonelli "frankly replied in the affirmative" 
to the question as to whether the Papal authorities would surrender Surratt 
upon an authentic indictment and at the request of the State Department. 

On November 6, 1866, an order was issued by the Papal authorities for the 
immediate arrest of Surratt, and the arrest was made, without any demand or 
request, so far as it appears, from the government of the United States. 

From the foregoing, and from other evidence produced upon the investigation, 
which is hereto attached, your committee find — 

1. That the Executive did not send any detective or agent to Liverpool to 
identify Surratt, or trace his movements, notwithstanding there was ample 
opportunity tor doing so, as appears from the communication of Mr. Potter, 
above referred to. 

2. That the Executive did not cause notice to be given to our minister at Rome 
that Surratt intended going there, when the government had every reason to be- 
lieve that such was his intention. 

3. That on November 24, 1865, an order was issued from the War Depart- 
ment revoking the reward oflered for the arrest of John II. Surratt. 

4. That from the reception of the communication of Mr. King, under date of 
August 8, 1866, up to October 16, 1866, no steps were taken either to identify 
or procure the arrest of Surratt, then known to be in the military service of the 
Pope. 

The testimony of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and others, 
which is herewith submitted, explaining and tending to justify the acts of the 
government in the premises, does not, in the opinion of your committee, excuse 
the great delay in arresting a person charged with complicity in the assassina- 
tion of the late President of the United Slates ; and while your committee do not 
charge improper motives upon any of the officers of the govenmient, they are 
constraiiud from the testimony to report that, in their opinion, due diligence in 
the arrest of John II. Surratt was not exercised by the executive department of 
the government. 

Respectfully submitted : 

F. E. WOODBRID(n^:, 

For Coinmittcc. 



JOHN H. SURE ATT. 



TESTIMONY. 



Washington, January 10, 1867. 
Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Boutwell : 
Q. Was there an order or proclamation issued offering a reward for the arrest of John H. 

^T^ My impression is that there was a reward offered, but I have not a copy of it with me. 
I will look it np, if such a paper exists, and lay it before the committee. 

Q. Was there an order issued from the War Department withdrawing or revoking such 

°^A Th^re was. I have the original draught with me. That order was made by me. I 
myself recommended that the oft'er should be withdrawn. The President left it t^ my dis- 
Sn to withdraw it or not. as I saw proper, and I issued the order, ot which the follow- 
ing is a copy : 

[General Orders No. 164.] 

War Department, Adjutant General's Office, 

Washington, November 24, 1865. 

Ordired, That— , x • t. 

I All persons claiming ivward for the apprehension of John Wilkes Booth, Lewis Payne, 
G A AtLrodt and David E. Herold, and Jefferson Davis, or either ot them, are notifaed to 
hl'e their claims and their proofs with he Adjutant General for final adjudication by the spe- 
1^ coLtrn appointeJto award and determine upon tbe validity o such claims, before 
thp first dav of January next, after which tune no claims will be leceiyed. 

II The?ewarroffefed foi' the arrest of Jacob Thompson Beverley Tucker, George N. 
Sanders, William G. Cleary, and John H. Sunatt aie revoked. 

By order of the President of the United States ■ . ^ ^ TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant General. 

believe that pursuit was over, and tliey might '■^Uiin to tje Lifted State. 

For these reasons I thought it expedient to revoke he ord.^- . " V^'best in the nfatter. 

sponsibility ; the President left it at my '^^;"J^«^/?,f j^^^^^Xf^e t me you advised the 

sul at Liverpool, in which he says : 

"SIR -. Your despatches from 533 to 541, -^^X^: ^^-^.^Teci^iy o vt^nd the 
No. 538, I have to inform you that, upon a consult^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ 

Judcre Advocate General, it is thought advisable that no action 
arrest of the supposed John Surratt at present. 

Have you any recollection of siich a consultation^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^.^^^^ 

A. I have a recollection one tune of Mr. Hunte ^ 'ngiug o se u, ^^^^ ^^^^^^_ 

pondence in relation to Surratt. My >°^P[«««;7,^^]^ J' ^^Jtealr was about to go out, and 
A few days afterwards Mr. Hunter called, and said '^^ 5^^%'^™ I ^old hiin I had not; 
wanted to know if I had any instructions to give in lega d to Su ra -^ J iustructions for 
that I did not think at present the intomat.ui ^^'^^ ^^*;;'," ,f ^^^l.t to be fully identified 
the arrest of the person supposed to be feuiratt. I hought J^J «^V ^^ ^^ ,1,^ 

before any arrest was made. My ^'^ol f f «^ '^. .^ thl ^ e sent 1 have no Recollection of 
time, I thought the matter might as well he ovei tor the piesent. 



4 JOHN H. SURRATT. 

any particular couversatiou with Mr. Hunter, other than as above .stated, and there was cer- 
tainly none between him, the Judge Advocate General, and myself, as far as I can remember. 

Q. Were there any persons employed by the War Department for the purpose of discover- 
ing and arresting Surratt in Europe, in the year 1865, or 186(3? 

A. No, sir ; not for his arrest in Europe. Persons were employed, wliile he was supposed 
to be in Canada, to get information upon the subject, but without authoritj' to make arrest 
there. I did not consider that the War Department was authorized to make any arrest in a 
foreign country, but wiiile he was supposed to be in Canada, I wanted to ascertain where he 
was, and persons were employed to get information upon that subject. 

Q. Is there anything further in regard to the matter of the discovery and arrest of Surratt 
that you consider it important to state? If so, the committee would be glad to have you 
state it. 

A. So far as I have any knowledge, nothing was omitted to be done that ouglit to have 
been done for the arrest of Surratt. I did not thinlc it proper at any time to make an arrest 
until his identity should be clearly established. And I am not aware of any disposition 
upon the part of any officer of the government to delay or hinder or throw any obstacle in 
the way of Surratt's arrest ; and I do not know of anything more that could have been done 
than was done to accomplish that object. 



Washington, January 17, 1867. 

Hon. E. M. STANTON, having been recalled, says that he has here a copy of the reward 
offered for the arrest of John H. Surratt. It appears to have been issued the 20th of April, 
six days after the murder of Mr. Lincoln, and before the arrest of Booth. 

W^\R Department, Washington, April 20, 186;"). 

$100,000 Reward. — The nnirderer of our late beloved President, Abraham Lincoln, is 
still at large. $.50,000 reward Avill be paid by this department for his apprehension, in ad- 
dition to any reward offered by municipal authorities or State executives. |l"25,000 reward 
will be paid for the apprehension of .lohu H. Surratt, one of Booth's accomplices. $25,000 
reward will be paid for the apprehension of David C. Harold, aKotherof Booth's a'-complices. 

Libera] rewards will be paid for any information that shall conduce to tlie arrest of either 
of tlie above-named criminals, or their accomplices. All persons liarboring or secreting the 
said persons, or cither of them, or aiding or assisting their concealment or escai)e, will be 
treated as accomplices in the uuu-der of tlie Presidetit and the attempted assassination of the 
Secretary of State, and shall be subject to trial before a military commission and tlie punish- 
ment of death. Li't the stain of innocent blood be removed from the land by the arrest and 
punishment of tiie murderers. All good citizens are exhorted to aid public justice on this 
occasion. Every man should consider his own conscience charged with this solemn duty, 
and rest neither night nor day until it be accomplished. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

Dtsrriptivns. — Booth is 5 feet 7 or eight inches high, slender build, liigli forehead, black 
liair, black eyes, and wore a heavy black mustache, which there is some reason to believe 
has been siiaved off. John H. Surratt is about f) feet 9 inches ; hair rather thin and dark ; 
eyes rather light ; no beard. Would weigh 14.'") or 150 pounds; complexion rather pale and 
clear, with color in his cheeks; wore light clothes of tine quality : shoulders square ; cheek 
bones rather prominent : cliin narrow; ears jirojecting at the top ; forehead rather low and 
.square, but l)id:id : parts bis hair on the right side: ni;ck rather long; his lips are lirmly set; 
a slim man. David C. Harold is 5 feet (> inches iiigh ; hair dark, eyes dark, eyebrows rather 
lieavy, full face, no.se short, hand .short and lle.shy, feet small, instep high, round bodied 
naturally (juick and active, slightly closes his eyes when looking at a jterson. 

Notice— \n addition to the above, State and other authorities have offered rewards amount- 
ing to almost one hundred thousand dollars, making au aggregate of about two hundred 
thousand dollars. 



DErXUTMENT OK STATE, 

Washington, February II?, 1867. 
SlU : I liavi- tiic honor to endo.-ie iierewith the copy of my testimony before the .Judiciary 
Committee. 1 lielieve there were some other corrections suggested, but 1 do not now recol- 
lect wliat tliey were. 

I iiave the honor to be, sir, your obedient servanl, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. .Tami-.s T. Wilson, 

lliiiisr of lirprrsentatives. 



JOHN H SURRATT. 5 

Washington, January 21, 1867. 
Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Boutvvell : 

Q. The first matter to wbich we desire to call your attention is a telef^rain, in cipher, re- 
ferred to in a despatch from the United States consul general at Montreal, under date of Oc- 
tober 25, 186ii, which does not appear in the correspondence sent in. Have you a copy of 
that telegram, in cipher, and its translation ' 

A. I have the original with me. I desire to be excused from leaving with you the tele- 
gram in cipher, as it belongs to the records of the department deposited with me, and to 
leave it in any other place, with the key, might lead to a revelation of the cipher. The 
cipher has been used ever since the government has been in existence, so far as I know, and 
has never been successfully detected. It is said to be a very excellent one. I have here a 
copy of the translation, with a communication from the late chief clerk, and the first orders 
on the subject, which I lay before the committee ; they are as follows : 

Mr. Consul General Potter to Mr. Seward. 

[Telegram in cipher.] 

Montreal, October 23, 1865. 
I have knowledge, which I consider good, that Surratt left Three Rivers a while since for 
Liverpool, where he now is, waiting for money to be sent him by the Nova Scotian, which 
sails from Quebec on Saturday. The knowledge comes from the surgeon of the ship, who 
knows Surratt and was in his confidence. I ask instructions. 

JOHN F. POTTER. 

Q. When was the despatch, of which the above is a translation, received at the Depart- 
ment of State ? 

A. On the 26th of October, 1865, as I find by referring to the entries in the department. 

Department of State, 

JVashingt07i, January 19, 1867. 

Sir: Pursuant to your order of this date, we have searched for, found, and have the honor 
to lay before you the paper mentioned in the order of the Hon. .James F. Wilson, chairman 
of the Committee on the .Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and a translation of 
the same made by the present Second Assistant Secretary, who was chief clerk at the time the 
original was received. It appears also, from the mark in pencil on the paper, that it was 
referred by the chief clerk to Mr. Jones for file. The Mr. Jones adverted to then had charge 
of the consular business in which the consulate general at Montreal was included. When 
the papers relative to Surratt were in preparation, in answer to the resolutions of the House 
of Representatives, directions were given for everything on record or on file relating to him 
to be communicated. The absence of the paper in question was noticed at the time the report 
was ready, but diligent search failed in discovering it. A telegram was then sent to the con- 
sul general at Montreal, requesting him to furnish a copy of the telegram and the despatch 
referring to it. He replied that no copy of the telegram could be found, but that the despatch, 
a copy of which was sent, contained the information given in the telegram. A copy of that 
despatch accompanied the papers referred to in your report to the President in reply to the 
resoJutions of the House of Representatives of December 3, 1866. Inquiry has since been 
made at the military telegraph otfice for the record there of the original, but that having 
proved fruitless, a renewed search was made among Mr. Potter's despatches, which has 
resulted in finding the paper this day, which, it appears, was received from the "United 
States Telegraph Company, 450 Fifteenth street, post office and Kirkwood House, Wash- 
ington." 

We have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servants, 

W. HUNTER, Second Assistant Secretary. 

R. S. CHEW, Cliief Clerk. 
Hon. WiLUAM H. Sewaku, Secretary of State. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Was Mr. Jones at that time a clerk in the department ? 

A. He was a clerk in the department when the paper came to the State Department. The 
mails are opened by the chief clerk, whose business it is to take everything to his room, un- 
seal the letters, and lay before the Secretary whatever there may be requiring his attention. 
Matters merely of routine, that can be done without bis attention, are not laid before him. 
Family and private letters are opened with the others, the envelopes removed, and laid upon 
my table for my attention. As convenience allows, I give the necessary directions about 
them. Those relating to my personal concerns are put into my private box by my private 
secretary; the others are marked "file," or the necessary directions given to them. This 
paper was so marked, and that is all I knew of it. When the papers called for by a resolu- 



6 JOHN H. SURRATT, 

tiou of tlie House to be sent to Congress were brought before liie, I discovered that in tlie 
correspondence with the consul at Canada this despatch was not there. I called the atten- 
tion of the chief clerk to it. He said there was no such paper to be found — that they had 
looked everj'where for it. I said, "That cannot be so," and asked him from what consulate 
the letter was received. I then directed further search, which was unavailing until I re- 
ferred to these letters in my instructions to ministers or consuls abroad, and to Mr. Adams, 
and discovered that it was received from the consulate at Montreal. I then directed search 
to be made in the bureau of the consulate at Montreal. The answer came back that there 
was no such document. We have a volume that contains the correspondence with the con- 
sulate, but it was not there. I asked hov that could be. They said, "We are moving 
from the old State De]iartment, and the papers are, perhaps, in some confusion." I then 
directed a telegram or letter to be sent to Montreal to furnish the despatches. Back came 
two despatches which I have heretofore sent to you. I discovered then that this telegraph 
despatch was not there. I then obtained iuforoiation from the consul who sent the despatch, 
through his successor, that the vice-consul says he attended to sending the despatch, and that 
no copy was kept, but that the contents were substantiallj' written in the despatch which 
was sent. In that way it remained. We received no further communication upon the sub- 
ject until yesterday. I then gave the order through which it was finally obtained. 

Q. Was there a clerk at any time ia your department during the war, by the name of 
Jones, who was authorized to receive any despatches from the confederate government, or 
any cfficer thereof? 

A. I have no knowledge of any arrangement during the war permitting any clerk in the 
department to receive letters through the post office from the confederate government, or any 
one there, or to receive any communication of original information from the confederate gov- 
ernment without my knowledge. I ought to tell you that I think the reason why that paper 
got mislaid was, that the whole matter was very confidential. The reason why it could not 
be found was, that extraordinary care was taken to put it somewhere where it could be found 
when it was wanted: and where it could not be found and made public without proper 
authority. 

By Mr. Boutwkll : 

Q. Did you see a cipher despatch, sent by Mr. Potter, consul general, under date of Oc- 
tober 2','; when the same was received .' 

A. I remember that a despatch was laid before me, or that I knew it was received. I re- 
member very well that my attention was called to it. 

Q. Were any instructions given to Mr, Potter, following the receijjt of this desi)atch, or 
any steps taken in reference to the arrest of Surratt ? 

A. All the proceedings that have been taken, and all the wjiolc matter, have been submit- 
ted to Congress in the two reports which have been made. 

Q. Does filename ".loues," in jieucil, in the despatch, refer to John A. Jones, or some 
other person .' 

A. It relates to tiie person who is now acting consul in Canada, John B. Jones. 

(-i. Was any person despatched by tlie .State Department as agent or detective to Liverpool, 
upon or after the receipt of those desjiatches from Mr. I'otter / 

A. No, sir; there was never anybody despatched there, for the reasons whicli are stated in 
the correspondence, 'i'he conclusion Mr. Adams arrived at I concurred in, that at that time, 
under the circumstances, a ])ursuit might reveal itself, without the end sought l)eing obtained. 
I believe you now have every paper in my possession relating to the sul)ject, witii one ex- 
ception. When these pa])ers were called tor, it was in my recollection tliaf some time in 
September last I had received a letter, or a copy of a lefier, from St. Marie himself. I 
had .seurch made for it in the files of tlie de]iartment, but it was not to be found. It was a 
paper on wiiich I grounded n part of the proceedings in the matter, and I again caused dili- 
gent search to be made for it, wifli only the answer that it was not there. Whetiier the 
letter was addressed to ine, or whetiier it was addresseil to somebody else and sent to me, 1 could 
not tell ; but I remember making it the basis of a conversation wilii Mr. Stanton, Secretary of 
War, witli the Attorney (Jeneral, and, 1 tiiink, with the cabinet. On yesterday morning I had 
further examination made, and 1 then remembered, for tlie first time, that it v.as contained in a 
jtrivafe, unofficial letter, wliicli I had received, •■lud was probably among my ]iaprrs which my 
private secretary, \\ ho comes at inti'rvals, had liouiid U)i. I directed the ciiief cleik, yesterday, 

to look carefully o\cr my unollicial corres] deuce, and he brought uj) this letter, together 

with two others, wiiich 1 now lay Ix^fore the committei', so far as they relate to this subject. 

When that lett<'r was received on the Kiih of Oclolier, as it appears here. I saw the Secretary 
of War in relation to it, and the Attorney tieneial. I think 1 sulmiitted to the Attorney General 
the ipiestion whether, under tlie jiresent circumstances, the proceedings should take jilace 
upon an ;illidavil, or \vlietlicr it was e.\])edieiit to get an indictment, lie determined that it 
would be inexpedient to get an indictiiieni, liecause it would give ]iiiblicity to the transaction, 
and might enable Surratt to escape. He deteriiiine<I that an atlidavit would be suflicieiit for 
the purjMise. The Attorney General examined the whole subject, although I my.self was en- 
tirely satisfied of the truth" of tlic statement of St. Marie. It was referred to the Attorney 
General for greater safety. He advised, however, that no steps shoulil betaken until Mr. 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 7 

Kiug should have sent a special agent to St. Marie with a photograph of Surrutt and should 
be able himself to identify Surratt. That was the proceeding advised by the Attorney General, 
to whose province it seemed to belong, and in which, of course, I acquiesced, and that is the 
disposal which was made of that letter. There is another private letter wliich was received on 
the third of September, under date of August 9, in wliich the following extract refers to 
this subject. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Mr. King in a despatch dated June 19, 1866, (No. 56,) mentions that two despatches 
from the State Department, numbers 34 and 35 are missing. No. 35 appears among the 
documents furnished to Congress. No. 34 does not. State, if you please, whether No. 34 
relates to this subject ? 

A. I presume it does not or it would have been included among these documents. I will, 
however, ascertain, and if relevant, furnish it to the committee. 

Q. Mr. King in adespatch, (No. 62.) ;lated August 8, J866, says: "lavailed myself of the 

opportunity to repeat to the cardinal the information communicated to me by in regard 

to John II. Surratt. His eminence was greatly interested by it, and intimated that if the 
American goverment desired the surrender of the criminal, there would probably be no diffi- 
culty in the way." TLat was dated the 8th of August, 1866. The ne.xt despatch of the 
Secretary of State to Mr. King in relation to this matter bears date the 16th of October, 
1866. I desire to ask you why so great delay occurred between the time when the informa- 
tion was comnmnicated by the Roman government that Surratt was in their army and the 
demand for his surrender? 

A. If the letter was written the 8th of August, it would get here about the 8th of September. 
About the 8th of September the President, myself, and others of the cabinet were at the 
west, and we remained there I think, thirty days or thereabouts. After I returned I was 
sick in my room until some time about the 16th of October, when these proceedings took place. 
I will state, however, that whenever I left the department, it was always with instructions to 
whatever person I left in charge behind me to follow up the investigation about Surratt, and 
to confer, whenever information was received, with the Secretary of War or the Attorney 
General, as the case might be ; therefore nothing could have been left undone that ought to 
have been done in relation to it. 



Washington, D. C, February 16, 1867. 
Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD recalled and examined. 

By Mr. Boutwell : 

Q. Will you state whether the despatches on pages 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Executive Document 
No. 9, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, second session, (not including either Mr. 
Hunter's letter. No. 476, nor that of F. W. Seward, No. 164, or either of them,) were sub- 
mitted to the President at or about the time they were received? 

A- I am unable, after this lapse of time, to speak of the fact as to whether the despatches 
alluded to were submitted to the President or not. 

Q. Are there any means in the department of showing whether the despatches referred to 
were submitted to the President or not ? 

A. I think there are no records or minutes by which it would appear whether they were 
submitted to the President or not. The only guide to my remembrance about what has been 
submitted to the President or not is generally found in the records, which show the disposi- 
tion made by me, and in the kind of despatches I wrote in answer, which might enable me 
to recollect whether the papers were submitted to him or not. But my replies would not be 
conclusive upon the question whether the despatches were actually subnntted to the President 
or not. What I can now say upon that point, in relation to these despatches, is, that it 
would have been according to my habit to speak to the President, I think, if a convenient 
opportunity offered, in a cabinet meeting. At the same time they might have been consid- 
ered as matters of routine, not requiring special direction. I think the probability is that the 
despatches were regarded as matters of routine, and not specially submitted to the President, 
while it seems to be probable that, according to my customary habit, I spoke ot the busi- 
ness to the President when occasion offered, in cabinet or elsewhere. 



Department of State, 

Washington, January 21, 1867. 
Sir: In conformity with my promise made this morning, I have the honor to communi- 
cate to you a copy of Mr. King's despatch of March H, 1865, No. 34. The committee will 
observe that it makes no allusion to the case of Surratt, and treats only of foreign matters. 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 



T have also the houor to enclose herewith such parts of private and unofficial notes of Mi-^ 
Kin J (discovered yesterday and exhibited by me to the committee th>s mornmg) as have any 
bearing on Surratt's case. , .. ^ . 

1 have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, ^j^LIAM H. SEWARD. 

^°°" ^^''chafrmZ''::/^- Conunittee on the Judkiary, House of Representatives. 



[Private and unofScial.] 

Rome, August 9, 1866. 



SdYn'afAnCein ^s much interested in the story about Surratt and intimated his read 
inSt to give him up if our government >vants him, as also to let St. Mane have h,s discharge. 

Always faithfully yours, RUFUS KING. 



[Private.] 

Hamburg, September 23, 1866. 



My De^R CjoveRNOR: I enclose a letter forwarded to me from Rome a f'^/^^y^^^^,^.^^^; 
in whicli St Marie narrates his griefs to Mr. Hooker. He thinks, ot course, that too little 
noticehasbcfn taken" f his stat^ements about Surratt; but would be satished, I h'^ve no 
Soubt ifhis cirscharge from the Pontitical zouaves were procured, and the means fm-nished 
him to pay l'i« passage home to Canada, where his old mother is still living. His discharge 
I could obtain without difficulty, if it be desirable. , , * 

#. * *^ * * "* 

Always faithfully yours, RUFUS KING. 

[For prudential reasons the letter of St. Marie is here omitted.] 



[Private.] 

Rome, December 1, 1866. 



No\''ews%^tTfratt. I^euclose the h.t letLr received (a copy) from our consul at 
Naples. There seems good hope of catching the fugitive at Alexandria. 

' » * *( * * 

Always faithfully yours, RUFUS KING. 

United States Consulate, 

Naples, November 26, 1866. 
Dear Sir : I have this moment received a letter iVom Mr. Winthrop, our consul at Malta, 
of which the following is a copy: 

United States Consulate, 

Malta, November 20, 1866. 

DEAR sir: I received your telegraph respecting Surratt ''"/'"^f^J/,^;",^;"!;./' 'jlf^* 
o'clock, and before nim. the next morning bad written to the acting c\u.i •' ^ ^^ •' ; ^^^^^ 
that this notorious criminal might be laiuled here and kept under guaid until I ^^»'»'*^ f "^ 
himtL United Stat.s, where bis crime was committed. Notwithstanding I l-ressed lor 
a imniediute answer, both in my public despatch and bv a private "''t^;' J^' ,;],,f , ^ 
reach me until 4 p. m., when the steamer Tupuh was ready to ^^^'^^ '\,'^^' V Tbi w iV ^ 
then, as 1 think, .'wing to literal .luibbling, my re<p,est was not gnu el. 1 rs -'■•'- 
annoying, an-i 1 sliall send all the c.rrespoiuience to Hon. W . I . Nc wai 1. n. 1'"^ "P^j''^; 
to will {Tive the officials in this neighborhood some ki.owledg.- ot the treaty now exiting foi 

the ancst of cnininals, wliieli they would appear so much to rciuire. 

It was most unlortunute th.it th.. Tripoli came m with iilteen days .ii.a a n tim. , ^^ ' ^'' '^^^^^ 
lately prevente.l ,>,.■ fr.,m having the least communication with he v..ssel, and t^^'S equally 
nnfoVtinate that tl..' lelegranhic cable betweu this point and Alexandria has broken down 
BO that no messages can be" sent. But I at once sent a telegram to the consul general m 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 9 

Egypt, via Constantinople, which, I am told, will reach him in two days, and at least, 
twenty- tour hours before the Tripoli arrives. Havicf^ full judicial powers, it will not be 
difficult for Mr. Hale to arrest the criminal before he lands, though it may cause him much 
trouble to identify Surratt when he is among the seventy-nine men who are now on board 
the vessel. The consignees of the vessel here kindly sent a letter from me to Mr. Hale, 
under cover of their agent in Alexandria, and to be delivered before the passengers land. 
I earnestly hope that by my telegram or letter the criminal may be arrested ; if such should 
be the case, perhaps you will write me that I may forward any and all information which 
may be necessary for the consul general to know. 

Yesterday afternoon I received a telegram from Hon. Mr. King, minister at Rome, and have 
not time to write by this mail. I should feel truly obliged if you would send him a copy of 
this note, that Mr. King may know what I have done. 
Very respectfully, 

WILLIAM WINTHROP. 

After your letter it cannot do much good for me to write to Alexandria, but as yours was 
written before you had received my second letter, and as one from me will probably arrive 
before one from yourself, I shall immediately write the consul general at Alexandria. It may 
assist in identifying Surratt. 

I have the honor to be, very truly, &c., 

FRANK SWAN, Consul. 
Hon. RUFUS KiXG, Minister, Sfc, Rvme. 



Department of State, 

llasliinoton, February 19, 1867. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose for your information and that of the committee over 
which you preside a copy of a letter, of yesterday's date, addressed by this department to 
Marshal Gooding, relative to John II. Surratt, charged with being an accomplice in the 
assassination of the late President, Abraham Lincoln. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

W^ILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Hon. Jamf.s F. Wilson, 

Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Represcntatices. 



Department of State, 

Washington, February 18, 1867. 

Sir : The Secretary of the Navy informs me that the United States ship-of-war Swatara 
has arrived and is lying off the navy yard, having on board the prisoner John H. Surratt, 
who is charged as an accomplice in the assassination of the late President, Abraham Lincoln. 
It is the request of the President that you take the prisoner at once into your custody and 
detain him for trial according to law. You will call at the Navy Department for an order on 
the commander of the Swatara. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

D. S. Gooding, Esq., 

Marshal of the United States for the District of Columbia. 



Washington, D. C. January 10, 1867. 
Brigadier General JOSEPH HOLT recalled and examined. 
By Mr. Boutwell : 

Q. A letter from Mr. Hunter, Acting Secretary of State, addressed to H. Wilder, vice- 
consul, Liverpool, dated October 13, 1863, (probably 1865,) speaks of a consultation with 
the Secretary of War and Judge Advocate General, and says, "It is thought advisable that 
no action be"^ taken in regard to the arrest of the supposed John Surratt at present." State, 
if you recollect, the nature of the consultation referred to in this communication. 

A. I have no recollection, so far as I am concerned, of any such consultation with Mr. 
Hunter. I remember that the paper enclosed by Mr. Wilding, signed by George Melly, was 
brought to my notice. I think I read it. I certainly was made aware of its contents, but 
not with a view, as I irnderstood, to have official action by me, and I never took any. If 
any subordinate of the State Department called on me at that time in connection wuh the 
paper, I do not now recollect it. It is barely possible that some one may have done so. I 



10 JOHN H. SURRATT. 

Lave no recollection at any time of ever having^ said or done anytliino^ to discourage the pur- 
suit or arrest of John H. Surratt, but I remember, in connection with this very paper, hav- 
ing the impression, which I believe was generally entertained, that if any formal demand 
had been made upon the P^nglish government for Surratt, that government would have fol- 
lowed its own precedents — treated the assassination of the President as a political offence, 
and would have refused to deliver him up. I did not derive that impression from conversa- 
tion with any officers of the government, but it was the subject of conversation with various 
persons, and was, I think, the received impression prevailing. I may state, if it is proper 
that I should do so, that I did not regard it as at all within the scope of my official authority 
either to urge the demand for Surratt or not to urge it, unless the question was in some way 
_ referred to me for consideration. I supposed it belonged to another department of the gov- 
ernment, and that it would not have been at all proper for me to have obtruded any advice 
whatever. I therefore confined myself, when the matter was brought to my notice, to 
furnishing such information as my own knowledge or the records of the othce would afford, 
and which would be of advantage to the government in making the investigation and pursuit 
in which it seemed to be engaged. 

By Mr. Thomas : 

Q. 1 ask you whether detectives are still, or were at the time this information came from 
Liverpool, in the employment of the War Department? 

A. I think the detective force, of which General Baker is the head, had been discharged 
before that time, and that there was no detective force in the employ of that department. 



Washington, D. C, February 4 and 5, 1807. 
WILLIAM HUNTER, Second Assistant Secretary of State, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. BOUTWELL : 

Q. In tlie despatch signed by you as Acting Secretary, (No. 47G, ) dated October 13, ]S63, 
(I suppose it should be Jbtif), ) to Mr. Wilding, United States vice-consul at Liverpool, you 
say: "In reply to yours. No. 538, I have to inform you that, upon a consultation with the 
Secretary of War and the Judge Advocate General, it is thought advisable that no action be 
taken in regard to the arrest of the supposed John Surratt, at present." State the con- 
sultation witli the Secretary of War and the Judge Advocate General to which you refer in 
that despatch. 

A. My im])ression, at this distance of time, is that I sent Mr. AVilding's despatch (No. 
538) over to ^Ir. Stanton and to Judge Holt by one of the gentlemen of the department wlio 
was in the habit of going there on such business. I do not think I saw them personally. It 
■was lie who held the consultation and brought me their oral opinion. 

Q. Can you recollect the name of the ofticer of the dej)artment who wan with jMr. Stanton 
and (jlciiieral Holt? 

A. 1 tliink it was Mr. Chew, the present chief clerk. He was in the habit of being sent 
both by the President and myself on such occasions of business with the War Department. 

Q. Did you, at that time, iiavc any opinion yourself as to wlietiier it was expedient to 
arrest Surratt ? 

A. I liad a very decided opinion that it would be useless to attempt his arrest anywhere in 
the British possessions .' 

Q. On what was that opinion based ? 

A. It was based on the poor success we had with the pirates, especially with the j)irates 
of the Cliesa])eake, and of the J. W. Gerrity, a vessel that was taken by i)iiates. The Eng- 
lish couits decided that although ])irac3- was a crime mentioned in the (extradition treaty, it 
was a crime triable in any country where tlu^ pirates might be found ; and they were let off 
on that ground, although we demanded their extradition. 

Q. Was it not on the ground, also, that the English authorities could try them under the 
law of nations ? 

A. Ves ; but they did not try tlicni. 

(i. 'i'hry (lid not refuse to dt liver thrill up on the ground llial the pir.ites iiad the right to 
escape ? 

A. O, no. 

Q. Did it not appear to you that the case of Surratt, charged with complicity in tlie assas- 
Kination of the President, was a very different ca.se.' 

A. It was dill'(Ment ; liut all the law (juestions relating to these matters were canvassed 
at the lliireuu of Military Justice, and the State Department considered itself governed by 
what mi^rlil lie decideil on tiiere. 

Q- 1'" you mean to lie understood as saying that tlu; person who was sent by the State 
Department totJK! War Department stated on his return that Mr. Stanton and Mr. Holt were 
of opinion that Die arrest of Surratt should not be madi- at that time? 

A. Yes, tliat was my understanding. 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 



11 



Q. Who was actiug as Secretary of State during Mr. Seward's absence in the west in Sep- 
tember last ? , , . , . 

A I think I was. I forget whether his son was here or not. 

q'. State when the despatch of Mr. King dated August 8, 18GG, was received? 

A. It was received the 27th of August. c. . . • ,f .,t;.,. 

Q. Had you orders from Mr. Seward, while j'ou were acting as Secretary, to give attention 
to tiie matter of the arrest of Surratt ? 

A. No special orders. ' , _, • i n i 

O Within your knowledge was the subject of the arrest ot Surratt considered by you o 
bvMr. Seward, Secretary of State, or Mr. Seward, Assistant Secretary, a teT the receipt ot 
Mr. King's despatch of August 8, and previous to Mr. Seward's despatch (No. 4.>) ot Uc- 

*" A.' fhave no recollection on that point, particularly. So many details of business pass 
throuo-h my hands and over my mind that it is impossible to recollect. 

Q Do yL know why the oider for the demand of Surratt was delayed alter the receipt ot 
Mr. King's despatch of August 8? n „ „,attAv Ymi 

A I am under the impression that there was a cabinet consultation on the mattei. \ou 
must recollect that there was no extradition treaty with tl^? l'«f ',^°Vl .'VreKdou 
be a matter of delicacy to ask from a foreign government, with wh.cli we had no e.vtrad.t.ou 
treaty anythino- in the nature of a favor which we might be expected to return. 

Q.^The despatch of August 8, from Mr. King, states that Cardinal Antonelh intimated 
there would probably be no difKculty in the way of a ^uiTender yet tbe demand or S^ 
arrest and delivery was not issued by the State Department till the 16th ot (ktobei, ^^imi 

""IX^S^V^^- ?lSt they were in doubt as to whether they would make the applica- 
tion at all, as it might form an inconvenient precedent. P,p«i^pnt of the United 

Q. Surratt was charged with complicity in the assassination of the Piesident ot tlie Lnitea 
States, how could the demand for his delivery form an ^"^^^f^'^l^J^^/j^^^tes escaped to this 

A. If a man charged with being the assassin of Francs the 1< ^ f| "If '^Pl'^f.^'^'J fy ^ ./p '. 
country, there bein| no extradition treaty, do you think we would be apt to S^^ »""^ "P^ * 
I "h 'you to uncferstand that I was not in the --«*«[ /l^^,^/,^'";^ ^f.^e t^e ^ 

was determined upon. It was a serious question, from what I understood at the time. 

1 if;Swer^ to that is, that if a foreign sovereign with whom -^J.f^ -^^^J^f ^t" 
trea y were to be assassinated, and if a man charged with being an accessoiy U) tj^e assass.na 
on we e o take refuge in the' United States, and if his delivery -f/^^^r^vouM rinJ in Jhe 
ernmentofthe country whose sovereign had been thus ^^'^f^^;^]^;;^. ^,;^^^^^^ 
demand, in the case of Surratt, (it strikes me,) an inconvenient piecedent it ^^e wtie oou.eu 

, to refuse the other demand. ,„iTjf Kptwppn the receipt 

Q. Do you know whether anything transpired, and if anything, ^'^^^^A.^ ^foc^tXr^ 
of Mr Kino-'s despatch of August 8, and the letter of the Secretaiy of State, ot October id, 
that i;d the^SecreL■y to make, at.that time, a demand for Surratt's surrender ' 
A. I do not. r 1.1 n 

i- ^^2^lmJlZt:^'^t^''^^^^^r..^..^ on the .7th. On tire 
m^in oft^t^^ct is an^rder, in uf. ^^^^<^^lr'^^^^}:^C^<^^'^^'^ 
to the Secretary of War." That was written on tb^"f.^8:'" '^"^'^'^f /,\^^^^^^^ 
despatch which relates to Surratt. That order was ^^'j^^f^^'J " .f^f^.a/accrdSally ^ 
August 28, a copy of which is here^^•ith transmitted, and which letter v%as ac^^><ienta''y 
from the pkpers Vent to the House of Representatives. The following is a copy ot the lettei 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 28, IHbb. 

S,R, Encloscl I l,avc Iho Uouor to "^«">i' ".^f «"=' p™"/ ta Sh 1^' eWes^^ti'SS 

of requesting the surrender of Surratt. 

I have the honor to be your obedient servant, ^^ HUNTER, 

Second Assistant Secretary of State. 

Hon. E. M. Stanton, 

Secretary of War. t,ti,onii0« 

WITNESS, (continuing:) No answer --received from the Secretaj^^^^ 
tion at the close of that letter. The moment I saw tbat \he extract ^^ue^^^^ ^^^^^ 

to the Secretary of War I knew that they must have ^^^2,uZi!Zind 
therefore I had4 more thorough search made tor the lette and ^^ v^as h, ud ^.^^^^^^ 

Q. The note on the margin of the despatch was made by Mr. Se^ara ueioi 
west ? 



12 JOHN H. SURRATT. 

A. Yes, the 27th, the clay the despatch was received. It is in his handwritiajj. It is his 
usual practice, whenever he wants anything particular done in reference to a despatch, to 
write his instructions in pencil on the margin, 

W. HUNTER. 



Washington, D. C, Tuesday, February '), 1867. 
ROBERT S. CHEW sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Boutwell : 

Q. What is your official position now, and what was it in August and September last ? 

A. I am chief clerk in the Department of State ; I was then in charge of the consular 
bureau, embracing the consulates of South America, Central America, Mexico, the islands of 
the Pacific, and some of the islands of the Gulf. 

Q. Arhong the {mpers submitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of State 
is a despatch. No. 47(i, dated October 13, 1863, (it should be 1865,) signed by W. Hunter, 
Acting Secretary, addressed to H. Wilding, United States vice-consul, Liverpool, in which 
is this sentence : "In reply to your .538 I have to inform you that, upon a consultation with 
the Secretary of War and the Judge Advocate General, it is thought advisable that no action 
be taken in regard to the arrest of the supposed John Surratt at present." Do you know 
anything of the consultation with the Secretary of War or the Judge Advocate General on 
the subject ? 

A. The despatch referred to (No. .038) was taken by me, at the request of Mr. Hunter, to the 
Judge Advocate General, and also to the Secrelary of War, to ascertain from them whether 
they bad any directions to give on the subject. I first submitted the despatcli to the Judge 
Advocate General, and afterwards to the Secretary of War. The Secretar}' of War read it, 
and said he did not think it necessary that any action should be taken in the case at pres- 
ent. I returned with the despatch to the department, where I made a memoiaudum on it to 
guide tiie chief clerk in his answer to Mr. Wilding's despatch. By "consultation" I pre- 
sume Mr. Hunter means the submission of the matter to those officers. 

Q. Did you have any interview on the same subject with the Judge Advocate General ? 

A. Yes, sir. I submitted the despatch to the Judge Advocate General first, and then I 
went from him to thi^ Secretary of War. 

Q. What was the n>ply of tlie .Judge Advocate General ? 

A. I merely told the Judge Advocate General that my instructions were to show the de- 
spatch to him. and then to take it to the Secretary of War. He handed it back to me, mak- 
ing no reply that I recollect. My impn^ssion now is that the Judge Advocate General 
reciuested me to take the despatch over to the Secretary of War. I think Mr. Hunter's in- 
structions w(>re to take it first to the Judge Advocate General. I was so freciuently going 
to see both those officers during the rebellion that I am not very clear on that one point. 
However, the despatch was .'ubmitted to both those officers by me. 



Washington, D. ('., Filinmry Hi, 1807. 

Hon, E, M, STANTON recalled and examined, 
liy the Chahiman: 

Q, I call your attention t(i a statement made by Robert S. Chew, in his testimony before 
this committee on the; .'jth of February instant, in relation to despatches 47(; and i)'.l8, and 
relating to an interview which he alleges to have hail with you concerning said despatches. 
Please state yimr r('C(il!ecliiin of the eircumstances ot'that interview. 

A. Mr. Chew is a clerk in the Slate l>epartment, ■•uid occasionally brings ])aiiers from that 
de|)artin<!nt to the Secretary of War, for liis information or for whatever occasion may re- 
(piire. TiiO despatches refcM'red to, I stated in my examination, were either brought or sent 
to me by Mr. Hunter. 'J'liey were no <loul)t brought by Mr. Chew. They were brought into 
my oflice in business hours. I locdvcd at them enough to see what subject-matter they re- 
iateil to, ami told him I had no directions or instructions to give at that time. I am (juite 
sure I never stated to him, or to auyboily else, that I diil not think it net'cssary that any 
action should be taken in the casi' ;il present. My rei-ollection is, that I told him I would 
consi<Ier the matter, and i) any instructions occurred to me which I oiight to give they would 
be givt'ji iiefore the next steamer. My opinion or advice was not asked by Mr, Chew at that 
time, anil under the cin-umslanees, at the time he mentions, it woidd have been impossible 
that 1 slionlil have given aiiv \villiout coiisiijeralioii, or wliliout more consideration than I had 
at the time. My recollei^liou is, that these, are the two despatches referred to, but that they 
did not contain sufficient evidence of identity to justify any immediate arrest ; and that when 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 13 

1 was afterwards called upon, before the steamer went out, I expressed the opinion that 
identity should be established before an arrest was made, as I said in my former examination. 
If Mr. Chew made the memorandum, which he says he did, it was not shown to me, and 
he certainly mistook what I said. There never was a time when I was not as anxious as 
any man could be to have Surratt arrested ; but over his arrest in a foreign country I had no 
control, and as a matter of discretion, in my opinion, the identity of the individual was an 
essential preliminary to any arrest; and it was my wish that every means should be taken 
by the proper department to establish that fact. 



Washington, D. C, Fehrvury 5, 18G7. 
L. J. McMillan sworn and examined. 

By Mr. BoUTWELL : 

Q. Where do you reside, and what is your occupation ? 

A. I reside at Sweetsburg, Canada, and I am a medical doctor. 

Q. Did you know John H. Surratt ? And if so, state when, and under what circumstances. 

A. I became acquainted with John H. Surratt in the month of September, 1865. I did 
not know him then under the name of Surratt ; he was introduced to me under the name of 
McCarthy by a gentleman in Montreal, who kept him in secrecy after the assassination of 
Mr. Lincoln. I was then surgeon of the steamship Peruvian, plying between Quebec and 
Liverpool. He came on board of the ship, I believe, on September 11, 1865. I never sus- 
pected who he was until after we had left. One day he inquired of me "who that gentleman 
was," pointing to a pa.ssenger. He said he believed he was an American detective, and that 
he was after himself. "But," said he, "if he is," (he put his hand in his pocket and drew 
out a revolver,) "that will settle him." Then I began to suspect — not that ho was Surratt — 
but that he had been connected with the rebellion herein some way. After that he would be 
continually with me every day, because I was the only person on board he knew, having 
been introduced to him by my friend, and he seemed not to care for being in the company 
of any one else. He used to come to me when I would be alone and ask me to walk with 
him on the deck ; and he would always talk about what happened here during the war. He 
told me that he had been from the beginning in the Confederate States' service, carrying de- 
spatches between here and Richmond, and also as far as Montreal ; that he and Booth had 
planned at first the abduction of President Lincoln ; that, however, they thought they could 
not succeed in that way, and they thought it was necessary to change their plan. After 
this, belore the assassination, Surratt was in Montreal, when he received a letter from Booth 
ordering him immediately to Washington; that it was necessary to act, and act promptly, 
and he was to leave Montreal immediately for Washington. He did not tell me he came 
here, but he told me he came as far as Elmira, in the State of New York, and from that place 
telegraphed to New York to find out whether Booth had already left for Washington, and 
lie was answered that he had. He did not tell me whether he had gone any further than 
Elmira. The next place he spoke to me of was St Albans, Vermont, where he said he 
arrived early one morning — about breakfast time — and went to a hotel there for breakfast. 
While he was sitting there he heard several talking about an assassination, and he inquired 
"what was up?" They asked him if he did not know that President Lincoln had been 
assassinated. He said, "I did not believe it, because the story was too good to be true." 
On that a gentleman pulled out a newspaper and handed it to him. He opened it and saw 
his own name as one of the assassins. He said this unnerved him so much that the paper 
fell out of his hands, and he immediately left the room and walked out; and as he was going 
out through the house he heard another party say that Surratt must have been, or was at 
the time, in St. Albans, because such a person (mentioning the person's name) had found 
a pocket hankerchief on the street with Surratt's name on it. Ho told me he actually looked in 
his pocket and foxind that he had lost his pocket handkerchief. From that place he then 
went to Canada, and was concealed there from April to September. Tliere were a great many 
things which he told me that I have forgotton, or at least are not now fresh in my memory. 
At the time I paid particular attention to what he said, and when I first made a deposition in 
Liverpool everything was fresh in my memory. But since then I thought everything was 
over, and I never paid any more attention to it. Consequently, there are a great m?ny 
things which he told me that now I cannot recall to memory. 
Q. When did he first disclose to you that his name was Surratt? 

A. The first time that I was sure that he was Surratt was on a day that he was talking 
about his mother having been hung. He did not call her Mrs. Surratt, or by any otlJcr 
nam.e, but he spoke about his mother having been hung ; and of counse I knew well enough 
that there was only one woman that had been hung in connection with this assassination, 
and so I was pretty certain that he was her son. He also asked me who did I believe he 
was. I was not sure who were the parties that had escaped, as I was away at sea most of 
the time, and was not well posted about it ; so I answered him I believed he was either Sur- 
ratt or Payne. He gave me no answer to that reply, but only laughed. But the last day 



14 JOHN H. SURRATT. 

he was on board the ship he called me aside and aj^ain coiniiienced to talk about tlie assassi- 
nation, and one things or the other. It was in the evening-, and we were alone toj^ether, and 
he took out his revolver, which he kept in his pocket all the time, and pointed it to tlie 
heavens, and, said lie, "I hope and wish to live just a few years jnore — two years will do 
me — and then I shall go back to the United States, and I shall serve Andrew Johnson as 
Abraham Lincoln has been served." I asked him, "Why?" And he answered, "Because 
he has been the cause of my mother being hung." I said then, "Now, who are you?" 
though I was pretty sure then who he was ; but still he had not given me his name himself. 
He looked around to see whether there was any person near us, and he said, "My name is 
Surratt." That was the time that he told me, though I was pretty certain before who he 
was ; but up to that time he had not told me so himself. 

Q. Look at that, which purports to be a printed copy of an affidavit accom])anying a de- 
spatch dated the United States consulate, Liverpool, Septetnber 27, LSCf), and signed A. 
Wilding, vice-consul, (No. 538,) and state whether or not that affidavit was made by you? 

A. It was. 

Q. After leaving the Peruvian, at the end of the voyage of which you have spoken, Avhen, 
if at any time afterwards, did you meet Surratt? 

A. I made this atifidavit on the 25th of September; the next day would be Wednesday, the 
26th. I told Mr, Wilding that he would be in Liverpool within a day or two, and that as 
soon as he had come I would let him know. So, on Wednesday, the 2(ith, in the evening, 
Surratt came to my boarding-house but I was absent. I came back a few minutes after he 
went away, and I was told a gentleman had been inquiring for me. From the description 
they gave me of the gentleman, I knew who it was, and I went and told Mr. Wilding. Sur- 
ratt had told the landlady of my boarding-house he would come back again to my place the 
same evening about seven o'clock, and he did return about that time. He wanted I should 
go with him to a place to which he had been recommended to go, but he could not find the 
place, and he asked me to go with him and show him the place, and I did so. Mr. Wilding, 
I think, had sent a detective to watch us, because I saw a man following us from the time 
we left my house until I left Surratt, and he went to that house to which he had been recom- 
mended. Hp promised to see me the next day, but he did not do so. I got a small note 
from him stating that he intended to go to London, but that when he got to the station there 
were several Americans there, and he was afraid of being recognized, and did not go any 
further. A few days afterwards I saw him again, and he gave me a letter to bring back to 
the party who had taken care of hitn in Montreal, He expected some money, because when 
h(! got to Liverpool he had very little money. I know it because I saw his ])ocket-book, and 
what money he had was in American gold, and I gave him English gold fur it. He told me 
lie expecled some money — a remittance, he told me, from W^ashington — but it would come 
through his friend in Montreal, and that I would very likely be charged with it when I came 
back ; so he gave me this letter, and I brought it to his friend when I went back, but there 
was no letter for him — at least none given to me for him, 1 saw him again in Liverpool; 
that was five or six weeks after he left the vessel, I saw liim again that time— onct' or twice 
I believe — and I iu;ver saw him since. 

Q, Did he wear any disguise during the passage, or while he was in Liverpool? 

A. While in Liverpool every time 1 saw him was in the evening. He told me he did not 
like to move out in the day time, and lie always came to my house in the evening, and then 
he wore a long cloak, and he would throw the end of it across his face — that is, he would 
throw the corner of his cioak over his face when he would walk out on the street. On board 
sliip he. wore no other disguise than spectacles, hut you could se<^ his hair had been dyed, 
lie told me his eyes weie good enough, hut tlu; spectacles wrre just to disguise him a little. 
There was at that time on board a General Kipley, from South Carolina. Whether they had 
been acquainted before or not I do not know, but I saw them in conversation a few times 
together; and I remember that Surratt told me in Liverpool that, if he found himself very 
hard uj) for iftoney, (Jeneral Kipley had given him his address, or at least the; address of his 
agent in l>oiidon, and to writ(\ to his agC'Ut, and that he would see he W()uld have a remittance, 

C^, Have you in your possession the note of which you spoke of his having written to 
yout 

A. I have not. I had two notes of his; and when I started to come down here, I looked 
for them, but could not find them. 

Q, Did you at any time coumiunicate the information you had of Surratt to any other 
officer of the United States except Mr. Wilding ! 

A. Yes; in Canada, wlien I cain(^ back, Hefore I left Liverpool, I saw Mr. Wilding 
again, and he told nii- the, govenunent was not willing to do anything, or something to that 
en'cct; so I thought the governnunt did not want to have anymore to do about it, and I 
paid no more atienlion to it until 1 came buck to Canada. I was one day talking with my 
friends, and I said I had crosseil witli Surratt. I nnide no secret of it, and told it to several 
perHons, liy sonui means it was carried to Mr, Potter, who is United States consul in Mont- 
real. I think it w.'is the consular agent of tho United States at St. .lolin's. Canada East, Mr, 
.Morchonsi', with whom 1 was acfpiaintcd, told me, as I was going to Montreal, that 1 had belter 
call on Mr, I'otier and tee him. 1 did so the same day, and told him about tlu; same thing 
as there is in this testimony. He then told me (it was on Thursday) that he had already 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 15 

telegraphed to the authorities in Washing-tou about it, and that very likely I would receive 
some papers, or something else, from the government here about the matter ; but I have 
never heard anything further about it. 

Q. Do you know in v/hat month, or what day of the month, you called on Mr. Potter? 

A. I should say it was on a Thursday, which was either the '23th or 26th October, 1865. 

Q. What day would the steamer sail ? 

A. The Saturday morning. He told me tliat, from the information he had received from 
Mr. Morehouse that I knew all about Surratt's movements, he had already telegraphed to 
Washington. (The despatch. No 236, signed Potter, Montreal, October 25, was here handed 
to witness ) That is the despatch he sent while I was there. 

Q. Do you know what time is required to come from Montreal to Wasliington, or New 
York? 

A. When I was on my way here, the other day, we were detained on account of the 
snow ; and it took us between forty and forty-five hours to come from Montreal to New 
York. 

Q. Do you know how much time you lost? 

A. I think, ten hours. 

L. J. A. MCMILLAN, M. D. 



Washington, D. C, February 20, 1867. 

Commander WILLIAM N. JEFFERS, United States navy, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Boutwell : 

Q. Are you in command of the Swatara, which has recently arrived in this country ? 

A. I am. 

Q. She brought as a prisoner John H. Surratt ? 

A. I do not know whether she brought John H. Surratt or not ; she brought a prisoner 
from Alexandria, Egypt. 

Q. Was there any person on board the vessel who was known as John H. Surratt ? 

A. No one on board knew him. He was delivered to me by the consul general at Alex- 
andria, and represented by him to be John H. Surratt. I have no doubt that is his name, 
but I have no personal knowledge on the subject. 

Q. Was there any person on board who had previously known John H. Surratt in Wash- 
ington ? 

A. There was a person by the name of St. Marie who claimed to have known him. 

Q. Were there any officers or men belonging to the ship who had previously known John 
H. Surratt ? 

A. None whatever. 

Q. Under whose instructions did you proceed to Alexandria ? 

A. I proceeded in consequence of a telegraphic despatch from Admiral Goldsborough. 

Q. Did you have any instructions from him or any other person in regard to receiving 
Surratt on board ? 

A. Simply to consult our minister, and to receive on board this person who was delivered 
to me. 

Q. Did you have any instructions as to the manner in which you should treat him ? 

A. None whatever. Confidence, I presume, was reposed in my judgment as to the proper 
mode of treatment. 

Q. Where were you when you received the order '' 

A. At Marseilles. 

Q. At what time did you arrive at Alexandria ? 

A. I proceeded first under orders to Rome, hearing that he had been arrested there. Find- 
ing that he had escaped, I received a second telegraphic despatch instructing me to proceed 
to Alexandria, touching at Malta for information Irom our consul there. I received this per- 
son on board at Alexandria the 21st of December. 

Q. During the voyage have you had any conversation with Surratt ? 

A. None whateve*. The following are the orders given by me relative to intercourse with 
the prisoner: 

ORDERS RELATIVE TO THE STATE PRISONER. 

For executive and watch officers. 

He is not to be allowed to converse with any person whatever. 

If he desires anything, the request shall be referred to me 

No person is to be permitted to converse within his hearing upon any other subject than 
ship's duties. 

The orderly and a sentry specially charged with his gaard will be responsible that he does 
not escape. 



16 JOHN H. SURRATT. 

He will be kept in the room arianji^ed for his reception, in single irons only, so long as he 
keeps quiet and makes no attempts at escape. The room door to be kept locked. 

He will, when necessary, use the captain's water-closet. 

His meals will be supplied by the ward-room mess. The food to be cut up, and a spoon 
only to be allowed witk which to eat it. 

He is to be carefully guarded against attempts at suicide, whether by jumping overboard 
or otherwise. If he attempts to escape he is to be fired upon by the sentry, the onlerly, and 
the officer of the watch. 

The upper tier of carbines in each chest is to be kept loaded, and daily examined to see 
that they are in good order. 

It is to be carefully borne in mind that the prisoner is put on board for safe-keeping and 
transportation to the United States, and that his death is preferable to his escape. 

If the prisoner becomes violent he is to be placed in double irons, hands behind him. 

He will be supplied with a mattress and two blankets. 

The sentry will be relieved every two hours, and he, with the corporal of the watch, will 
assure himself of the presence of the prisoner before relieving. 

The corporal of the guard and orderly, the latter on the poop, will be present when the 
j)risoner is taken to the water-closet, will see the door locked on his return, and hand the 
key to the officer of the watch. 

When in port the officer of the watch will be present whenever the door is opened. 

Meals may be passed in through the window. At the discretion of the commander the 
window mav be left open in the daytime in sunny weather. 

WILLIAM N. JEFFEES, 

Commander, U. S. N. 

Orders to the sentry relative to prisoner. 

The sentry is responsible in his own person for the safe-keeping of the prisoner. 

He shall alwaj's before relieving see that the prisoner is present. 

If the prisoner attempts to escape the sentry shall at once cut him down, or, with the or- 
derly and officer of the watch, fire upon him and kill him, if unable otherwise to detain him. 

He shall hold no conversation Avith the prisoner nor permit any other person to do so. 

He will refer any requests to the officer of the watch. 

The door shall not be opened except in presence of the corporal of the guard, the orderly, 
the latter on the poop ; and in port the officer of the watch. 

No persons except the quartermaster and cabin servants shall be allowed abaft the mizzen- 
niast, except by special orders of the officer of the watch for some duty. No one shall be 
allowed there when the prisoner is in process of removal from his room to attend calls of 
nature. 

WILLIAM N. JEFFEES, 

Conunandcr, U. S. N, 

In accordance with these orders, from the day he was received on my ship till tlie nuimeut 
I delivered him over to the marshal here, he has never spoken a word, and no one has been 
allowed to sj)eak to him except in reference to his personal wants. He is as ignorant of 
everything that has occurred from that time till the present as any person placed entirely 
without communication could be. 

Q. Did any person aw or convcn'se with him while \u' was in your charge ? 

A. No person except the admiral, (Joldsborough, at Villa Franca. 1 le examined my orders, 
and was so well satisfied with them that he added nothing to them. 

(-i- When was he delivered over to the marshal of the District ? 

A. Yesti^rday afternoon. 

(-1. Up to that time no person had communicated with him ' 

A. Up to that timi^ no j)crsoii whate\cr had spoken to him excei)ting as to his personal 
wants, as to his food, clothing, ».Vc. 

Q. Did you at Alexandria, or at any other place, see or lia\c a daguerreoty])e or photo- 
graph of Surratt ? 

A. ()m- minister ;it h'ome gavc^ me a photograph, said to be that of Surratt. which I sub- 
sri|ucntly returned to liirii. 

t^. Was it a photograph of the luisoiier you brought to this countiy .' 

A. It bore no resemblance to iiim. It had hoeii tak 'dently four or five years before. 

No one could have r(!cogni/,<'d liim from the ])hotograpj .i was the jjicture iif a just grown 
young man. He is a fine looking fellow, al)out 'J I years ojd, with a light goatee and little 
Hide-whiskers, reddish in color. 

(^. Was there anvthing about the photograph that led vou to su])pose it was taken of 
Surratt? 

A. I had reason to suopo.se so, hecause it was given n)e by our minister at Rome as 
having i)een sent out by the State Dejiartmint ; audit could very readily have been a pic- 
ture of this man four or five years before. 

If. Did you show it to Surratt? 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 17 

A. I had no communication whatever with him. I considered that my only duty was to 
convey him safely to the United States, and deliver him up, without any attempt to culti- 
vate his confidence or entrap him into admissions, or anything of that sort. 

Q. Did St. Marie see this photograph? 

A. I do not think he did. St. Marie was asked to go on shore to identify him, but he 
claimed that it hurt his feelings to be brought face to face with him. I have from that time 
entertained the utmost contempt for St. Marie. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Where did St. Marie leave your vessel ? 

A. He left me at Villa Franca. I took him on board at Rome, at the request of our min- 
ister, for the purpose of identifying Surratt, but he had not been on board but a few hours 
before he had told every one everything he had done, if not more. At Malta he wanted to 
goon shore; I refused permission, because I did not want him to babbie to the people 
there. At Alexandria I also refused to permit him to go on shore. At Villa Franca he 
wrote me rather a sharp letter, complaining of not being allowed his liberty. I referred tlis 
letter to the admiral, who let him go home. He left there and came home by steamer. 

Q. Had you any instructions in reference to bringing St. Marie to the United States ? 

A. None, whatever. I did not consider him a prisoner at all ; but at the same time I 
thought it proper to prevent him from going on shore and babbling to the people there iu 
regard to persons on the ship and his own matters. My object, as you will see, was simply 
to bring this man here, as lai as possible, without any knowledge of the excitement whicli 
I saw by the papers had been caused by his arrest, so that any evidence he might give after 
his arrival would be entirely unbiased by anything he had heard. 



Washington, D. C, February 25, 1867. 
Captain WILLIAM JEFFERS recalled and examined as follows : 
By the Chairman : 

Q. Please examine the photograph now shown you (marked Exhibit G) and state whether 
thai is a cupj' <>f one you saw in Rome. 
A. That is a copy of one I saw in Rume. 



Washington, D. C, February 26, 1867. 
DAVID S. GOODING sworn and examined. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. You are marshal of the District of Columbia ? 

A. I suppose I am. I am acting in that capacity. 

Q. Have you in your cirstody John H. Surratt as a prisoner ? 

A. That needs an explanation. When at the jail he is not in my custody as marshal. 
The jail is under the custody of the warden, over whom I have no control. The warden is 
an independent officer. 

Q. You took him from the vessel to the jail ? 

A. I did. 

Q. You are acquainted with his personal appearance ? 

A. Yes, sir. That, however, was the first time I ever saw him. 

Q. Look at the photograph, (marked Exhibit G,) and say whether, in your opinion, it is 
the photograph of John H. Surratt. 

A. I, perhaps, ought to say to the committee, that I am not very good in determining the 
likeness of persons. I could not say that was the photograph of John H. Surratt whom I 
had in custody. It resembles him somewhat, but I could not say positively. 

Q. Is this so perfect a representation of Surratt, that with its aid you could have picked 
him from a crowd of men as John H. Surratt ? 

A. When he was delivered to me it \ as in a different costume. I am not prepared to say 
that, in the dress he wore whe-- his photograph was taken, I would not have known him. 
There is some resemblance f ,in my judgment. 

Q. Suppose you had been sfentout to arrest John H. Surratt, and the only description ot 
him given to you was that photograph ; would you have been able to recognize him I 

A. I would not have been certain that it was the same person. 

Q. How was he dressed when he was taken to the court for arraignment? 

A. Pretty much as he is represented in this photograph. Looking at it again I would not 
say positively that it was Surratt, but it sufliciently resembles him to incline me to think it 
is the picture of John H. Surratt. 
H. Rep. Com. 33 2 



JOHN H. SURRATT. 
To 

and nose especially. 

Washington, D C. February 2S, 1867. 
Reverends. F. WIGET sworn and examined. 
Bv Mr. BOUTWEI.L : 

t Ha'™";' k».wu Surv... foj-anne^n h. w., about twelve year, old. He .» 

A. I coukl not exactly JV'^p- J,/ "^ rJJ/„.|,e„ I last .a>v bim. 
-rH;^Cte?o;rrhoVsratt''l:rt t^e couutty, wUlcb .ae supposed to ka.e W 

'7' . should tV,.,t U did, Hetty »el,, .t appeals „tke, youo.e. .od 1., wo,e a lutle Wa,d. 
fts I'said, when I bist saw bnn. 



W6 



